International News Donald Trump πŸŠπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

The other thing I would add here is whilst the market place of ideas is good in principle I again think it is rigged slightly towards those with a libertarian, free-market outlook. So the fact that the Mail, Times and the Sun etc all carry a right wing bias (of course you could argue that it is just satisfying a market demand for those views) skews the debate in their favour i.e. the fact that Culture Wars take over our public discourse when we should be talking NHS, education and @Big Ron 's cooking.

The BBC isn't left or right in my view and tries to keep a balance (log may that continue).

The only counter voice is the Guardian which whilst having some good writers (Marina Hyde) also has some absolute drivel (yes, Owen Jones I'm looking at you).

Anyway, the market place of ideas is also rigged is my point but I don't know what can be done about it.
I think there's a general misunderstanding amongst the public about what political terms actually mean. I'd be the first to put my hands up and say I have no idea where I'd be considered on the political spectrum. I'm fairly liberal/left leaning when it comes to things like justice/prison reform, but more right-leaning when it comes to things like immigration and asylum processes.

I reckon most of us are a combination of a lot of different political/social ideas rather than just one staunchly.
 
I think there's a general misunderstanding amongst the public about what political terms actually mean. I'd be the first to put my hands up and say I have no idea where I'd be considered on the political spectrum. I'm fairly liberal/left leaning when it comes to things like justice/prison reform, but more right-leaning when it comes to things like immigration and asylum processes.

I reckon most of us are a combination of a lot of different political/social ideas rather than just one staunchly.
That's very true and a problem in public debate. If you (not you personally) hold one view on an issue you get labelled "woke" or "gammon" and assumed to hold a range of other views.
 
That's very true and a problem in public debate. If you (not you personally) hold one view on an issue you get labelled "woke" or "gammon" and assumed to hold a range of other views.
Assuming is easier than having to acknowledge the views people hold and the reasons behind having those views can be varied and complex.

As seemingly with everything in society, instead of trying to understand one another there's a strong willingness to label each other and simply denounce others as 'bad'.
 
That's very kind Eric, but I'd hold fire if I were you - it's very late70s/ early 80s style cooking, we boil the goodness out of everything and cook meat dry. None of your medium rare or veggie nonsense. You know, the sort of cooking a lot of us grew up with at home.

I bet you do a blinding scampi or chicken in the basket then πŸ™‚
 
Assuming is easier than having to acknowledge the views people hold and the reasons behind having those views can be varied and complex.

As seemingly with everything in society, instead of trying to understand one another there's a strong willingness to label each other and simply denounce others as 'bad'.
The media have been dumbing down political discourse for a fair few decades now. It's much easier (and sells more copy) to make it simple, eye-cacthing and above all, inflammatory, than to actually provide a balanced anaylsis of events. And whilst just about all media outlets have always had a political leaning/affiliation, the use of said media to promote their brand of politics has certainly intensified over the last few decades, which has only served to polarise thinking on many complex issues over that time.

Then you go and add in something as divisive as referenda which by their very nature are designed to be polarising, and Bob's your uncle, the journalistic invective and political discourse surrounding them also becomes increasingly polarised and toxic.

Thank Christ (on a bike) we (just about) don't have a two party system like the US - that should serve as a warning to any mature democracy.
 
The media have been dumbing down political discourse for a fair few decades now. It's much easier (and sells more copy) to make it simple, eye-cacthing and above all, inflammatory, than to actually provide a balanced anaylsis of events. And whilst just about all media outlets have always had a political leaning/affiliation, the use of said media to promote their brand of politics has certainly intensified over the last few decades, which has only served to polarise thinking on many complex issues over that time.

Then you go and add in something as divisive as referenda which by their very nature are designed to be polarising, and Bob's your uncle, the journalistic invective and political discourse surrounding them also becomes increasingly polarised and toxic.

Thank Christ (on a bike) we (just about) don't have a two party system like the US - that should serve as a warning to any mature democracy.
You're right. The media have realised the best way to get people's attention is to play to their emotions. Evidence, balance, and sometimes even the truth don't matter as long as it hits the right emotional cord with the reader.
 
On a finite tax budget Europe has chosen to spend on healthcare and benefits. The US spends well north of 3% of GDP on defence they spend less tax dollars on welfare and health. Two thirds of NATO doesn't hit that woeful target of 2%. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/nato...g-threats-with-or-without-us-support-13069871 those countries that don't are doing the equivalent of leaving the keys in the ignition of the car with the engine running over night and probably deserve to be invaded and loose there freedom as they weren't prepared to pay to defend it.

Just to point out - the US doesn't actually spend less on welfare and health than the UK does. It actually spends about the same amount per member of the population on 'social protection' programs, and more on healthcare - that's the US government; when you factor in individual contributions, the US spends around 2.2 - 2.4 times as much per person on healthcare than Britain does......which shows how staggeringly expensive and inefficient the system is.

The big discrepancy (to make up for the increased defense spending) is that the US federal government spends vastly less per person on education and transportation.
Which is why almost everyone uses their cars here, schools are comparatively rubbish and students routinely get out of uni with six figure debts.
 
Back
Top Bottom